Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Minutes after the McNeilly news conference (reported here, along with a video link), I received a statement from Mayor Luke Ravenstahl via e-mail. It appears in full at the end of this post.

In the statement, the mayor makes these points:

•"It is important to note that Ms. McNeilly was not disciplined for speaking her mind. Rather, she was disciplined for releasing to the public a police officer's confidential personnel file."

•"Under the Court's decision, a City employee has the right to speak publicly about publicly important matters, consistent with the First Amendment and the State's guiding statutes."

• "... the exercise of such rights is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's legitimate interest in the enforcement of its workplace rules and regulations..."

That third excerpt echoes language in the McNeilly agreement, but the first line does not. I phoned the mayor's spokesman Dick Skrinjar to check on whether the release was intended as the public acknowledgement described in the the deal with McNeilly.

He told me that the mayor's interview with us on Monday was actually that acknowledgment. He added that Monday's remarks, the written statement, and everything the mayor's said on this matter since October comply with the settlement.

So, back I went to check by phone and e-mail for McNeilly's lawyers' reaction.

Tim O'Brien responded that "the mayor's comments are rehash of the city's arguments in court that were flatly rejected by the court. We expect them to comply in good faith with the spirit and letter of the agreement.'

Vic Walczak of the PA ACLU answered via e-mail: "Sounds like the mayor didn't learn much from this civics lesson. But rather than getting a failing grade, like you would in school, here he's costing City taxpayers lots of money. Let's hope he takes a little time to study up on the Constitution before he does something like this again."

Here's the mayor's complete statement:

"I am pleased that we have finally arrived at a conclusion to the McNeilly matter. Entering into a settlement was the option that best preserved the interests of the City, its taxpayers and Ms. McNeilly. A protracted legal battle would only have served the interests of the lawyers, generating additional legal fees for Ms. McNeilly's attorneys. "

"It is important to note that Ms. McNeilly was not disciplined for speaking her mind. Rather, she was disciplined for releasing to the public a police officer's confidential personnel file. That act was prohibited by Police Department rules created to protect the privacy rights of our officers. Chief Harper meted out the discipline he believed to be warranted to manage the Police Department effectively and I supported his decision. "

"Now that the Federal Court has offered additional clarity and guidance with regard to the Police Department guidelines, Pittsburgh has no problem complying. In fact, we have been complying since Judge Ambrose issued her decision. Under the Court's decision, a City employee has the right to speak publicly about publicly important matters, consistent with the First Amendment and the State's guiding statutes. Chief Harper, Ms. McNeilly and I acknowledge, however, that the exercise of such rights is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's legitimate interest in the enforcement of its workplace rules and regulations as needed for government to work properly and efficiently."